Catholic vs. Protestant - Page 2

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Tradd

See, with the Orthodox, a person who is Orthodox BEFORE getting married can ONLY - no ifs, ands, or buts - marry in the Orthodox Church a Christian baptized in the name of the Trinity, if the other half of the couple isn't Orthodox. The non-Orthodox half of the couple has to be a baptized Christian. If Jewish, Muslim, or atheist, no go. If you get married outside the Church - whether it's a civil ceremony, in a non-Orthodox Christian body, or even another religion's ceremony, you're "outside the Church." You've excommunicated yourself. You can't partake of any of the sacraments, you can't serve as a godparent, and you can't be buried from the Church. How long the excommunication lasts depends on your bishop.

However, if only one half of a married couple converts AFTER marriage, that's not an issue, although it could create some interesting pastoral issues in parishes where your exact situation is not known.

For Catholics, they need permission both to marry outside the Catholic Church, or to marry a non-Christian. The latter especially is not encouraged, and it is never a sacramental marriage. But because a priest is not understood to be required in Catholic understanding as it is in Orthodoxy, it is possible to marry outside of a Catholic ceremony and still have a sacramental marriage if both people are baptized.

When Catholics marry illegally outside the Catholic Church, they aren't considered married at all, and their status is irregular and they shouldn't receive the Eucharist. To be regularized they need to stop living as married until the marriage can be convalidated (which is really just a way of saying really marrying them in the church) and go to Confession.

[Purple Sage]

Wow, so much information! Thanks! The reason I ask, in case you couldn't guess is because I've been thinking for a while now about Catholicism, but the issue with my marriages (as well as some other issues regarding the pope, bc, and others) was holding me back from pursuing it further. Then I started learning about EO, and I've yet to find any major (or minor) points where I disagree with them, so it's nice to know that my marriages are not quite as big of a stumbling block as they would be in the RCC.

But so when I converted I was not yet divorced but I still recieved communion. Recieveing communion and my need for the healing and sanctifying and strengthening properties of the Eucharist was one of the main reasons our joining the church was not delayed. My priest agreed I needed it. And then once the divorce was final i was still of course ok to recieve.

Thank you so much for sharing your story, lilyka! This part really touched me.

Another question: Can anyone explain in simple terms the differences in beliefs about original sin?

[CherryBomb]

Just to correct a couple of things-

Catholics can choose to confess face to face or anonymously.

There are some married priests. The example of a Lutheran pastor who converted was given. Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church, it's a disciplinary tradition (meaning that, unlike male priesthood, celibacy can be changed). Also, Byzantine Rite Catholics (who are under the authority of the Pope) have married priests similar to the EO. They also use leavened bread for Communion (generally they're very similar in liturgical practice to the EO).

Purgatory is absolutely doctrine of the Catholic Church. Lilyka is probably thinking of Limbo, which is something else entirely. More on purgatory. Individual Catholics may or may not like the idea of purgatory, but is definitely doctrine.

[lilyka]

Yes I was probably thinking Limbo. Thank you for correcting that.

a whole beautiful article on original sin and how the Orthodox church views it. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin .

"Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. . ."

Just a little note on the whole diefication thing because that was the one thing that totally threw me for a loop. What it means is the process of becoming holy as He is holy through spiritual growth which happens through prayer, repentence and other spiritual disciplines.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by lilyka

Yes I was probably thinking Limbo. Thank you for correcting that.

a whole beautiful article on original sin and how the Orthodox church views it. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin .



Just a little note on the whole diefication thing because that was the one thing that totally threw me for a loop. What it means is the process of becoming holy as He is holy through spiritual growth which happens through prayer, repentence and other spiritual disciplines.

Thank you.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by lilyka

Just a little note on the whole diefication thing because that was the one thing that totally threw me for a loop. What it means is the process of becoming holy as He is holy through spiritual growth which happens through prayer, repentence and other spiritual disciplines.

"God became man so that man might become god." St. Athanasius of Alexandria

[Tradd]

A few relevant documents/websites on Orthodox-Catholic intermarriage from both sides:

Orthodox:
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthod...marriages.html

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=135&SID=3

www.goarch.org/archdiocese/.../marriage/...1/.../patsavos-joanides-article.pdf

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/de...baac1ae2cce0dd

Catholic (US Conference of Catholic Bishops website):

www.usccb.org/seia/Guide_OrthoChristianMarriage.pdf

www.usccb.org/seia/5-264.pdf

www.usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/7-050BI.pdf

On Orthodox - non-Christian marriage:

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/de...ynonchristians

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Another question: Can anyone explain in simple terms the differences in beliefs about original sin?

Orthodox: from Adam, man inherits mortality and a tendency to sin

Western Christian: man inherits from Adam his sin, which is passed down through sexual intercourse. Two consequences from this:

1. Babies are born with "original sin" which lead to them being baptized very soon after birth. I was raised Catholic and was baptized at three weeks old in 1969. I'm Orthodox now, and Orthodox babies are generally baptized around a few months old.

2. Sexual intercourse is "tainted" due to its being the mode of transmission of original sin, so sex for other reasons than conceiving is looked upon suspiciously.

Since so much of the "original sin" in Western Christianity comes from St. Augustine of Hippo, here's an article on the Orthodox view of him:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8153

[Smokering]

Tradd: I'm not sure what you mean by "Western Christianity"? In my church (Reformed Baptist) we wouldn't say original sin was passed down through sexual intercourse; it's considered more metaphysical than that. And obviously, we don't baptise babies. Or consider sex to be illicit/dubious apart from TTC. I suspect these views are pretty common throughout Protestantism, although infant baptism is more common than believers' baptism.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Tradd: I'm not sure what you mean by "Western Christianity"? In my church (Reformed Baptist) we wouldn't say original sin was passed down through sexual intercourse; it's considered more metaphysical than that. And obviously, we don't baptise babies. Or consider sex to be illicit/dubious apart from TTC. I suspect these views are pretty common throughout Protestantism, although infant baptism is more common than believers' baptism.

By Western Christianity, I mean it in more of a historical sense, as well as the RCC and other Western Christian bodies.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Another question: Can anyone explain in simple terms the differences in beliefs about original sin?

In Orthodoxy, mankind is understood to be made good - his nature is good. But man's sin has caused him to become subject to death, and impinged upon his close relationship with God. These two things together cause us to be confused about the right thing to do, and often unable to do it. (Rather like a child that has an attachment disorder.) The major work of the Crucifixion is to defeat death, and bring us back into a close relationship with God. We do this throughout our life, becoming more like God in the process. Baptism is to assist in this process. (Theoretically, it means that it is possible that one could avoid sinning.)

In the West, a different view prevailed. Man was still created good, but the original defiant act of Adam and Eve caused a defect in that nature, and so that defect is passed down to their children. Through sex yes, but because it is through sex that we obtain our human nature at all. (So, it's a bit like a chromosomal abnormality from exposure to radiation.) So baptism, in addition to being a means of Grace similar to the Orthodox understanding, corrects the defect - forgives the "original sin". The work of the Crucifixion is understood to accomplish that, but it is also defined very much in terms of the language Paul uses about satisfaction.

The Protestant groups such as Lutherans and Anglicans are a variation on this Western view. (They can at times have a more dismal view of man's own goodness, though that needs to be understood in its proper context, and it does not go as far as the Catholics into the area of the treasury of merits and indulgences.) And the more Reformed views, which Smokering alludes to, go much further and tend to see human nature as utterly depraved.

[Purple Sage]

Tradd, thank you for all the links regarding intermarriage. Upon first glance, none of them seem to address my particular situation, but I will read them more in depth later. In my situation, my dh and I were not married in a church, neither one of us have ever been Catholic or Orthodox (and neither was my ex-h, nor were we married in a church). I was baptized in the Methodist church when I was in high school, but I don't think dh or ex-h were baptized at all (if they were, it was as an infant in a protestant church, but - like I said - I doubt they were). Anyway, my major concern is being able to receive the Eucharist, if I decide to pursue converting. DH is at this time not at all interested in converting to any religion, and I would never consider divorcing him over this issue (nor would I consider joining a church that would encourage it).

All of this is putting the cart before the horse, anyway, as I'm only in the researching stage.

[Bluegoat]

PS - with regard to the above: I think it's important to remember that both of these viewpoints, Orthodox and Catholic, existed simultaneously in the Church for a long time. Both are only approximate models, because the truth of God is ultimately beyond our comprehension.

So it isn't necessarily necessary to pick one or the other as "the truth". Though both Catholic and Orthodox people tend to get rather heated about them.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Tradd, thank you for all the links regarding intermarriage. Upon first glance, none of them seem to address my particular situation, but I will read them more in depth later. In my situation, my dh and I were not married in a church, neither one of us have ever been Catholic or Orthodox (and neither was my ex-h, nor were we married in a church). I was baptized in the Methodist church when I was in high school, but I don't think dh or ex-h were baptized at all (if they were, it was as an infant in a protestant church, but - like I said - I doubt they were). Anyway, my major concern is being able to receive the Eucharist, if I decide to pursue converting. DH is at this time not at all interested in converting to any religion, and I would never consider divorcing him over this issue (nor would I consider joining a church that would encourage it).

All of this is putting the cart before the horse, anyway, as I'm only in the researching stage.

Purple Sage - if your first husband was not baptized, and does not want a reconciliation, you should be able to get the marriage dissolved according to either the Petrine or Pauline privilege (I always get them mixed up). It tends to be much quicker than an annulment.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

PS - with regard to the above: I think it's important to remember that both of these viewpoints, Orthodox and Catholic, existed simultaneously in the Church for a long time. Both are only approximate models, because the truth of God is ultimately beyond our comprehension.

So it isn't necessarily necessary to pick one or the other as "the truth". Though both Catholic and Orthodox people tend to get rather heated about them.

Thanks for the explanation. I must admit that I very much prefer the EO view of it....just makes more sense to me.


[QUOTE]Purple Sage - if your first husband was not baptized, and does not want a reconciliation, you should be able to get the marriage dissolved according to either the Petrine or Pauline privilege (I always get them mixed up). It tends to be much quicker than an annulment./QUOTE]

Good to know - thanks!

[lilyka]

Purple - That doesn't sound to me like it will be a problem on its own. But your best course of action would be to contact an Orthodox priest in your area (preferably at a parish you would maybe want to attend) and just talk to him and tell him your whole story. For the most part this is what priests do. It was really weird for me at first because growing up the pastor (in every church I attended) avoided this sort of thing as much as possible. Sovle the problem in a meeting or two, pass it on to a ministry team or life group, find a pamphlet whatever. But in the Orthodoc church you are your priests job. They really don't mind if you just call them up or email them with questions. You may need to schedule a time to get together but they can almost always make time for you (and if they can't I would recommend finding a parish with a better member to priest ratio if at all possible). At the end of the day your specific situation and what is best for you spiritually is what will be the determining factor in anything.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

Tradd, thank you for all the links regarding intermarriage. Upon first glance, none of them seem to address my particular situation, but I will read them more in depth later. In my situation, my dh and I were not married in a church, neither one of us have ever been Catholic or Orthodox (and neither was my ex-h, nor were we married in a church). I was baptized in the Methodist church when I was in high school, but I don't think dh or ex-h were baptized at all (if they were, it was as an infant in a protestant church, but - like I said - I doubt they were). Anyway, my major concern is being able to receive the Eucharist, if I decide to pursue converting. DH is at this time not at all interested in converting to any religion, and I would never consider divorcing him over this issue (nor would I consider joining a church that would encourage it).

All of this is putting the cart before the horse, anyway, as I'm only in the researching stage.

Actually, those links were only added because we got somewhat sidetracked in Orthodox-Catholic intermarriage. I'm aware they don't pertain to your specific situation.

As Lilyka said, your situation is complicated enough that you really DO need to talk to an Orthodox priest. I have to admit that I have never heard of the previous marriages of an Orthodox convert having to be annulled, etc. - annulments are not part of Orthodox tradition or practice. FWIW, not all Orthodox national churches will have a couple married in the Orthodox Church go through a Church divorce. Some do, some don't. For the ones that don't, the civil divorce is sufficient. A Church divorce is not something that will happen for a previous non-Orthodox marriage.

For example, this is from the website of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia's Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, on the Spiritual Court (the body that would grant Church divorces):

http://chicagodiocese.org/court.html

It says right in red letters:
If the couple was not married in the Orthodox Church, then a Church divorce is not necessary and need not be requested.

It is my understanding that the previous marriages (regardless of whether they were a Christian or civil ceremony) of someone converting to Orthodoxy really only come into play if the Orthodox person wants to get married in the Church.

I asked this question - about the status of a married person converting to Orthodoxy but spouse not interested - to a local priest (not my own priest) who I've worked with on a lot of local stuff and this was his response:

Good question--it's a gray area. An Orthodox Christian who marries must marry in the Church to stay in good standing.

But a married person who converts to the Orthodox faith should be considered differently. That person's priest should know and understand the situation and allow that person full participation in the sacraments regardless of the spouse. It's not logical for someone to convert and then be prevented from participating because the spouse is not interested in the Faith! (See I Corinthians 7:12-14) The problem is that it's complicated to explain outside of one's parish, and the person who converted should realize that when visiting other churches.

It is irregular and it is not spelled out anywhere; and there are some priests (I don't want to say illiterate) who just don't get it.

This priest is a very well-respected senior priest in his diocese, and has been a priest for more than 30 years. He flat out said none of this is written down anywhere. That's why you will not find anything on it online at any of the jurisdictional websites.

So, whereas the Catholic Church - as I understand it - would require you to get married in the Catholic Church once converted, the Orthodox Church doesn't require that *for one half of a couple converting on their own.*

It can get a little sticky, though, outside of your own parish, especially if you want to receive Communion in another parish. It's considered proper Orthodox etiquette to contact the priest via email or phone before your visit to introduce yourself and ask if you will be able to take Communion (Orthodox parishes tend to be small enough that the priest will know everyone who comes to the chalice. And the priest will be the only one giving Communion. There are no lay eucharistic ministers in Orthodoxy as there are in Catholicism). You might have to explain your particular situation. But one half of a couple converting without the other isn't that uncommon.

[Purple Sage]

Thanks, Tradd. I'm PMing you now.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Tradd

So, whereas the Catholic Church - as I understand it - would require you to get married in the Catholic Church once converted, the Orthodox Church doesn't require that *for one half of a couple converting on their own.*

This is only sort of true. It is true if the marriage had been outside the CC, AND one was baptized as a Catholic.

Because then that individual is considered to be a Catholic who has married irregularly. If they were baptized but not Catholic, or neither was baptized, then there is no need for convalidation.

In the case that one is a "revert" and the other will not consent to convalidation, there is a process to deal with it.